Insurance for having to use your gun? Ludicrous…but maybe not ridiculous

The idea that law abiding gun owners would need insurance to cover the costs of legally using their firearms is ludicrous.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it is unnecessary.

What do I mean? One need look no further than the George Zimmerman self defense trial. Zimmerman gets jumped by a gay-bashing homophobe and pummeled into the sidewalk. He shoots his attacker to save his own life in a clear case of self defense, yet due to political pressure and the complete absconding of fairness is charged with both a crime AND $500,000 (before lawyer fees) in order to defend himself.

I wish that were the only case in which a gun owner, acting responsibly in defense of their own life was being railroaded by malicious prosecution due to anti gun sentiment or political pressure, but it’s not.

In case you haven’t read here about Sung-Ho Hwang, the President-elect of the New Haven Bar Association was arrested simply because he had the GALL to open carry his sidearm. Doing so in Connecticut is completely legal mind you so long as you have a permit, which Mr. Hwang does. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to fight in order to get out of it. And fights cost money.

Then we have Darrell Schooler of Fort Worth who shot at a man attacking him who ALSO HAD A GUN. Schooler said it took less than two seconds to make the decision to fire his weapon, but it took weeks for him to get out of jail while authorities sorted through the details. Basically, Schooler’s attacker hit his car window three times with his fist and the butt of his gun before Schooler pulled his weapon and fired, shattering the car window. The man was surprised by the flying glass and shot himself in the arm. Schooler had “gun use” insurance and he was grateful that he did saying:

“This is insurance I thought I’d never have to use. Without it, I’d probably be in jail for something I didn’t do. God was with me that day. If I had leaned an inch-and-a-half to the left, I wouldn’t be talking to you now. That’s how close I came to getting my head blown off.”

Darrell Schooler needing insurance in order not to be bankrupted or incarcerated for simply saving his own life is an affront and attack on common sense and decency.

–

What’s next? The need for women to acquire “Dead Rapist” Insurance. Because killing a person who is trying to rape you is, according to the Brady Campaign, not the answer…it’s better to just lay back and take it.

–

When being forced to kill someone who is trying to murder or rape you, you shouldn’t have to worry about being victimized by the legal system. Too sadly though, it seems the legal system in some districts of this country disagree. And while fundamentally the need to get “gun-use” insurance is ludicrous, it might not be the worst thing to get.

–

I mean, if DA’s are just going to ignore Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and Open Carry laws, how much faith can we really have that you won’t be railroaded by the Gun-Hate express?

–

With ALL that being said, do not in any way take that to mean that I believe in a state mandated gun liability scheme. Those are just scams being floated in anti gun states as a further restriction and penalty to law abiding gun owners. It is no different than a poll tax for voting and a complete infringement upon our right to keep and bear arms.

–

Side note: Despite the Brady Campaigns full-on disavowment of the meme below, it WAS on their facebook page. People saw it, people took snapshots of it, took actual cameras and photoed their screens because they knew the cover was lifted off of what the Brady Campaign REALLY feels and that once the Brady campaign realized that THEY were the fringe and out of touch it would quickly be gone. I’ve decided not to let them off the hook.

MrApple

What’s next insurance to exercise your 1st Amendment? Isn’t this just a “tax” to pay in order to use what is already your birthright as an American?

Mr. Apple, once again you are right on the money. The minute we allowed the government the ability to tax ANY right we gave them the ability to limit that right only to the rich. Talk about disenfranchisement. The court struck down poll taxes in Harper v Virginia Board of Elections so that was a good step. I hope they continue to recognize that the payment in order to exercise a right is unconstitutional in all cases brought before them.